Stylecrest Fabrics, Ltd.

Text (OCR of the scan at left; may contain errors)

IN THE MATTER OF STYLECREST FABRICS, LTD., ET AL.

CONSEN1' ORDER, ETC. , 1)\ REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE TEXTILE FIBER PRODUCTS IDENTIFICATION ACTS Docket C-1170. Complaint, Feb. 10, 1967-lJeci8ion, Feb. 10, 1967 Consent order requiring a New York City distributor of textile fabrics to cease deceptively misbranding the fiber content of its textile fiber products.

COMPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, and by Complaint 71 F.

virtue of the authority vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that Stylecrest Fabrics, Ltd., a corporation, and Irving Stern, individually and as an offcer of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents have violated the provisions of said Acts and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Textie Fiber Products Identification Act, and it appearing to the Commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows: PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent Stylecrest Fabrics, Ltd. , is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York.

Respondent Irving Stern is an offcer of the corporate respondent. He formulates, directs and controls the acts, policies and practices of the corporate respondent.

Proposed respondents are engaged in the sale and distribution of textile fabrics with their offce and principal place of business located at 214 West 39th Street, Xew York, New York. PAR. 2. Subsequent to the effective date of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act on March 3 , 1960, respondents have been and are now engaged in the introduction, delivery for introduction, sale, advertising, and offering for sale, in commerce and in the transportation or causing to be transported in commerce, and in the importation into the United States, of textile , deliv-fiber products; and have sold, offered for sale, advertised ered, transported and caused to be transported, textile fiber products, which have been advertised or offered for sale in commerce; and have sold, offered for sale, advertised, delivered, transported and caused to be transported after shipment in commerce, textile fiber products, either in their original state or contained in other textile fiber products; as the terms "commerce " and " textile fiber product" are defined in the Textile Fiber Products Identification PAR. 3. Certain of said textile fiber products were misbrandedAct.by respondents within the intent and meaning of Section 4 (a) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in that they were falsely and deceptively stamped, tagged, labcled, invoiced, advertised or otherwise identified as to the name of the constituent fibers contained therein Among such misbranded textile fiber products, but not limited thereto, were textile fiber products advertised by means of brochures prepared by respondents, containing terms which repre- STYLECREST FABRICS, LTD. , ET AL. 153 151 Decision and Order sented, directly or by implication, certain fibers as present in the said products when such was not the case. Among such terms, but not limited thereto, was the phrase Silk-Like Linen" when in truth, and in fact, the fabric contained neither silk nor linen.

PAR. 4. Certain of the textile fiber products were misbranded by respondents in that they were not stamped, tagged, labeled or otherwise identified to show each element of information required to be disclosed by Section 4 (b) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, and in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated under said Act. Among such misbranded textile fiber products, but not limited thereto, were fabrics with labels which failed: (1) To disclose the true percentage of the fibers present by weight; and (2) To disclose the true generic name of the fibers present; and (3) To disclose the name of the country where imported textile fiber products were processed or manufactured. PAR. 5. The acts and practices of respondents, as set forth above were, and are, in violation of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, and constituted, and now constitute, unfair and deceptive acts or practices, in commerce, and unfair methods of competition in commerce, under the Federal Trade Commission Act.

DECISION AND ORDER The Federal Trade Commission having initiated an investigation of certain acts and practices of the respondents named in the caption hereof, and the respondents having been furnished thereafter with a copy of a draft of complaint which the Bureau of Textiles and Furs proposed to present to the Commission for its consideration and which, if issued by the Commission, would charge respondents with violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act; and The respondents and counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed an agreement containing a consent order, an admission by the respondents of an the jurisdictional facts set forth in the aforesaid draft of complaint, a statement that the signing of said agreement is for settement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the respondents that the law 154 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIO!,S Order 71 F.

has been violated as alleged in such complaint, and waivers and provisions as required by the Commission s rules; and The Commission, having re2.son to beUeve that the respondents have violated said Acts, and having determined that complaint should issue stating its charges ir: that respect, hereby issues its complaint, accepts said agreement, makes the follo\ving jurisdictional nndings, and enters the following order: 1. Respondent Stylecrest Fabrics, Ltd., is a corporation organized, existing' and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Kew York, with its offce and principal place of business located at 214 West 39th Street, New York, New York. Respondent Irving Stern is an offcer of said corporation and his address is the same as that of said corporation. 2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondents, and the proceeding is in the public interest.

ORDER It is o1'dered That respondents Stylecrest Fabrics, Ltd., a corporation, and its offcers, and Irving Stern, individually and as an offcer of said corporation, and respondents repres ntatives agents and employees, directly 01' through any corporate 01' other device, in connection with the introduction, delivery for introduction, sale, advertising, or offering for sale, in commerce, or the transportation or causing to be transported in commerce, or the importation into the United States, of any textile fiber product; or in connection with the sale, offering for sale, advertising, delivery, transportation, or causing to be transported, of any textile fiber product which has been advertised or offered for sale in commerce; or in connection with the sale, offering for sale advertising, delivery, transportation, or causing to be transported, after shipment in commerce, of any textile fiber product, whether in its original state or contained in other textile fiber products, as the terms "commerce" and "textie fiber product" are defined in the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, do forthwith cease and desist from misbranding textile fiber products by: 1. Falsely, or deceptively stamping, tagging, labeling, invoicing, advertising, or otherwise identifying such product as to the name or amount of constitutent fibers contained therein.

2. Failing to affx a stamp, tag, label, or other means of identification to each such product showing each element of C. M. GOURDON, INC. , ET AL. 155 151 Complaint informatiqn required to be disclosed by Section 4 (b) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act. it is further ordered That the respondents herein shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon them of this order, fie with the Commission a report in writing setting forth in detail the